Routine Testing Vital In Aids Fight

June 26, 1987|By Gary L. Bauer, Assistant to the President for Policy Development.

WASHINGTON — In the face of mounting infection and casualties from AIDS, it is time to stop treating this as a politically protected epidemic. It is imperative that we move ahead right away with routine testing as proposed by President Reagan. Some gay-rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union continue to oppose testing on the grounds that it would constitute an unacceptable invasion of people`s privacy. Instead they propose consciousness-raising programs and voluntary testing among high-risk groups. If they are successful in opposing prudent public health measures, they will put at risk millions of Americans who have a right to be protected.

Consider the startling facts about the disease. Today there are more than 29,000 AIDS cases and 16,300 AIDS deaths. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that between 1 million and 1.5 million Americans are infected with the virus.

Even more chilling are the rates at which the disease is spreading. Four years ago there were only about 1,500 AIDS cases. A year ago there were about 16,000 cases with 8,100 deaths. The numbers are virtually doubling every year. If the rate persists, the Surgeon General estimates a quarter of a million AIDS cases by 1990.

How do we begin to approach these daunting facts and probabilities? Three criteria should govern our AIDS policy. First, we should do everything we can to find a cure. Second, we should treat with compassion victims who are suffering from the disease. Last, but certainly not least, we should take all necessary measures to protect Americans not infected with AIDS.

Testing is an indispensable means to these ends. The reason is fairly obvious. We have to start by knowing the facts about AIDS. We are spending $317 million on AIDS research this year to discover more about the nature of the virus. But we also need to know more about how widespread the disease is. We cannot speculate about this; we need systematic data.

Some opponents of routine testing maintain that voluntary testing is the best way to gather such information. The reason, they say, is that two of the main risk groups, homosexuals and drug users, historically have been victims of public prejudice, and any program of routine or mandatory testing will drive them underground.

But there is no stigma involved in being tested if everyone is being tested in a routine way. Further, voluntarism in any policy only makes sense when there is a compelling reason to think that the individuals who need to be tested will choose on their own to be tested. The very advocates of voluntary testing admit that this is not the case, that fear of prejudice or social sanction might keep many of these people away. If this is so, then overriding social objectives such as national health may mean that we cannot follow a laissez faire approach in this matter.

Finally, testing is called for because many Americans are entitled to know the information it will provide. A health care worker has a right to know if a patient is carrying the virus. A woman is entitled to know whether her prospective husband may be carrying the disease because of previous high risk behavior. In the area of immigration, our society has a right to bar entry into the country to those with the virus just as we do now for other communicable diseases. We must not permit special interest groups to stand in the way of the health measures that have to be taken.